Shame on united
My sources say there was a few 8v8 training games between the first team and the U21s and the 21s won every one of them 
5 Likes
That’s a lovely pair of pyjamas
1 Like
The same thing happened Kilmakud Krokes when they were travelling to All-Ireland club semi-final against Glen.
Klopp is a cunt in fairness. But all the rest is true.
The famed academy
I’ve often thought watching uniteds overpaid fuckers strolling around that they could surely do a lot worse than firing in 4 or 5 eager young fellas
Those young lads don’t have enough instagram followers though.
Minister Cullen had nicer slippers !
1 Like
If El-Hadji Diouf is trying to calm you down you must be going buck ape.
3 Likes
Inside Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s meetings with Manchester United fans
The Manchester United fans in Old Trafford’s Ambassadors’ Lounge on Monday morning were surprised.
For the first time since before the Glazers’ takeover in 2005, a major shareholder in the club was meeting them face to face.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s deal to take a stake in the club is still to be ratified, but the chairman of the INEOS petrochemicals empire, Britain’s second-richest man, sat down for four meetings. The first two were with fans in person, the third was via a video call and the fourth was in person with local community leaders.
Ratcliffe was joined by his lieutenants Sir Dave Brailsford, Jean-Claude Blanc and Tom Crotty (an INEOS director and communications head). From United’s side, the club’s interim chief executive Patrick Stewart led. He was joined by Richard McGagh (director of fan engagement), Collette Roche (chief operating officer) and Ellie Norman (chief communications officer).
The Athletic has spoken to people present at those meetings. Most of those we talked to did so on the condition of anonymity to protect their positions. All came away with a positive impression.
To say that relations between United fans and the club’s main shareholders, the U.S. based Glazer family, are strained is not entirely accurate as there is barely any relationship at all. Despite saying they would communicate with fans when they took control almost 20 years ago, nothing happened until 2021 following a botched attempt to join a mooted European Super League.
Yet even before the Glazer takeover, relations between supporters and United were uneasy. Perhaps that’s the default setting of any fanbase.
In 1995, as United’s commercial revenues boomed, I suggested to one leading executive that he should get out of the directors’ box and watch a game in K Stand, behind the goal, to get a feel for what the fans were thinking and saying.
“They’d bloody lynch me!” came the reply. Ticket prices were rising steeply then and, despite the team being the best in the land, a gulf developed between United and their fans.
The term “Love the team, hate the club” proliferated and it was no coincidence that the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association (IMUSA) formed that same year. IMUSA’s initial funding came from two United fanzines, United We Stand and Red Issue. That official never did go into K Stand, then a hotbed of United’s vocal support, but there was suspicion between the club and its fans. A couple of years earlier, Martin Edwards, United’s chairman at the time, was asked at the club’s AGM — where supporters could put questions to the board — why he did not tap into fan opinion on matchdays.
“Because it’s too dangerous,” replied Edwards.
If you held shares in United — and companies sold individual shares for £20 ($25 at today’s rates) that allowed you to access the AGM — you could ask their leading executives questions, and hundreds of fans would turn up to ask and listen. It wasn’t perfect and too many would stand up and start their question with a history of their time as a fan, but it was useful. And with IMUSA up and running, manager Sir Alex Ferguson, leading players and club officials would show up for nights at O’Brien’s pub in nearby Stretford to face hardcore match-going fans. It worked.
Shareholders United (SU) began life in 1998 to try to prevent media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of United. The group stayed like that until the Glazers took over. The promised communication with fans didn’t materialise and SU changed its name to MUST (Manchester United Supporters Trust), which was formed as its members were no longer shareholders and the Glazers had compulsorily purchased all shares against the will of those involved.
United’s communication with their own fans was dead in the water, the cord of communication cut, yet league titles and another Champions League were won, while many of those who had protested against the Glazers left to support the breakaway FC United of United, including key figures from IMUSA, as United’s fanbase fractured.
In 2010, the green-and-gold protests at Old Trafford came off the back of the Glazers’ actions and the club’s accounts revealing that, without the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid for £81million, the vast interest payments on the club’s debt would have meant a net loss, even though United were Premier League champions and reached that season’s Champions League final.
Five years of consecutive ticket price rises, even during the credit crunch, ramped up the ill feeling and incited fan protests. MUST’s membership surged but the Glazers ignored all protests. The Red Knights, a group of United-supporting businessmen led by the economist Lord Jim O’Neill, tried to harness support to buy the Glazers out. They were rebuffed.
When chief executive David Gill left in 2013, talks again started between MUST and the club. Leading executives Ed Woodward and, later, Richard Arnold worked hard to build trust, initially around basics including ticketing — United’s entry prices have barely risen since.
United also listened to fans in other areas, such as bringing in safe standing and trying to address the flattening atmosphere at games. The club were excellent during the Covid-19 pandemic, engaging with the community, supporting fans and not furloughing staff, but the decision by the Glazers to attempt to join a European Super League torpedoed much goodwill.
Joel Glazer did finally speak to supporters, via a Zoom call, but when MUST got together with Ratcliffe on Monday, it was the first time its members had met anyone with a significant shareholding in the club in real life for close to 20 years.
Ratcliffe and his team stayed in Manchester after Sunday’s 2-2 draw against Tottenham Hotspur, the first time the INEOS chairman has watched a home game since announcing his planned investment in the club on December 24.
Monday’s meetings included in-person ones with MUST and the club’s Fans’ Advisory Board and a video call with United’s Fans’ Forum. Each lasted an hour.
The meeting with the Fans’ Forum was in the afternoon. They then saw local leaders, including senior representatives from Trafford Council and Greater Manchester Combined Authority, notably the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. The previous day, Ratcliffe had spoken briefly to journalists in the Old Trafford press room.
“The first thing you notice is Ratcliffe is very tall and has presence and an aura,” a person present at one of the meetings told us.
“He’s not a d***head, he’s pretty direct — a ‘Why use 10 words when two will suffice?’ kind of man. He was limited to what he could say but it was all about, ‘We’re here and we’re going to be here’. That is very different to what we’re used to.
“They (INEOS) want to get the football side of things fixed first. Dave Brailsford was very focused. He’s about trying to create an elite performance culture. He gets things done. Jean-Claude said less. He listened. He was friendly, socially.”
“They alluded to spending the last year doing their research into the club: our history, what has worked and what hasn’t,” another told us. “Brailsford was very impressive in his analysis. He spoke at length about how they are keen to learn from history and take the unique elements of our success from past eras to drive us forward.
“Brailsford spoke about what they believe are the key hallmarks of Manchester United: trust in youth, mixing those younger players with glamorous, iconic players who bring exciting football — not necessarily galacticos and big-name signings but exciting, dynamic players. And combining that with strong leadership that has vision and purpose, from managers and from the captains they choose. It was very stirring stuff.”
Another who met the INEOS group said: “Jim was very good, Brailsford was really exciting on sporting excellence. I found it all positive and even the principle of them doing it so early when they didn’t need to was good. I wouldn’t have been surprised if they hadn’t done it until the deal was done or if INEOS had done it but without Jim.”
The conclusions were similar from other people The Athletic spoke to.
“It was just so different to everything we’ve heard from the Glazers,” said one. “Football first, commercial/revenue as a consequence of that; effective decision-making based on what will bring footballing success, not what will generate income; approachability, open communication; being in it for the success and prestige, not the money; setting the standard that we should be competing for the league title and in the latter stages of the Champions League every year. No being happy with finishing fourth, no avoiding direct questions. It was so refreshing.”
INEOS knows United have a poor recent record when it comes to buying and selling players and plans to put a top-notch recruitment process in place.
The description of United being a community asset was mentioned across all the meetings.
“It was a positive meeting,” says JD Deitch, chair of MUST. “They get it. There will be a ‘root-and-branch’ review of the entire football operation. Dave Brailsford will be spending most of his time on that, along with Jean-Claude Blanc. Ratcliffe said, ‘I am not in this for the money. I make my money in chemicals’.
“Action speaks louder than words and, while they did not say anything more than how they would approach their review, you could feel the winds of change blowing. They will not be absentee owners.
“I left the meeting thinking two things: One, Jim Ratcliffe and Dave Brailsford genuinely believe they can fix Manchester United. Two, they are aware of how much trust and support has been lost from fans. We spoke about the flat atmosphere. There’s no conviction in the ground. After Tottenham’s second goal on Sunday, it was almost like we were expecting United would mess it up. So, just when the players need our support, they’re not getting it.
“We have to give them a chance. We have to try to work with them. This is a generational opportunity to make a difference. The last time we had this opportunity was 18 years ago. I was 36 in 2005. I protested in Manchester and in the U.S.; I did interviews on MUTV, the BBC and others talking about how bad the Glazers would be.
“I am no fan of the Glazers. They never gave us the opportunity to talk. These are. These people are saying the right things. They’re saying that there’s nothing off the table. Let’s f***ing go then. I’m not going to wait until I’m 72 for the next chance.”
Manchester United’s takeover filings explained and analysed
Manchester United’s filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are usually dry affairs. But the documents that dropped on Wednesday contained explosive details about the process that has seen Sir Jim Ratcliffe emerge as co-owner in charge of the club’s football operations.
Through the legalese, it is possible to discern the tensions of an arduous exercise that has left the Glazers — as well as some other executives and shareholders — many millions of pounds richer, as well as the doubts about the seriousness of Sheikh Jassim’s bid to take over.
The pages submitted to the New York Stock Exchange confirm the exact offers made by Ratcliffe and Sheikh Jassim and when they occurred, as well as presenting a fascinating insight into the motivations of all the parties.
Here, The Athletic selects and explains the major talking points.
Ratcliffe’s December threat to walk away by Christmas Day
The SEC filing details an “informal” board meeting between United’s directors on December 22, where they had a “robust” discussion following a threat from Ratcliffe to walk away from the table if they were not prepared to accept his proposal by December 25.
It is written in the documents: “Offeror was not prepared to accept any other changes proposed by the non-affiliated directors, and gave Manchester United a deadline of December 25, 2023 to accept its best and final proposal.”
Seemingly alarmed by Ratcliffe’s stance, the club called a board meeting on December 24 and voted through the INEOS founder’s proposal. Independent directors Manu Sawhney and John Hooks did not attend, however, a sign perhaps of being occupied by family plans at late notice.
The documents disclose that Ratcliffe’s first offer to buy the club was received before February 17, 2023, with the British billionaire wanting to purchase a controlling stake via an acquisition of Class B shares at a price of $22 (£17) per share, which would have left the Class A shares outstanding.
Ratcliffe was eventually persuaded to pay $33 per share and although 10 months of wrangling may have left a cloud over the club, that uplift was meaningful for those with large Class B shareholdings. Joel Glazer, for example, who has 21,899,366 Class B shares, personally made an extra $60million from Ratcliffe’s first offer to his last. Overall, 25 per cent of his shares are worth $180.7m.
Ratcliffe also provided copies of financing commitment letters to support his proposal.
He submitted several different options, which included put and call options in an attempt to eventually own all of the shares, throughout the process, each time increasing the price he was willing to pay per share.
On April 7, Raine sent letters to Sheikh Jassim and Ratcliffe, informing them that final bids would need to be lodged by the close of play on April 28. At this stage, Ratcliffe’s offer “remained unchanged”.
It was not until May, following encouragement from representatives from United to submit a bid that offered to purchase all of the outstanding ordinary shares, that Ratcliffe changed his proposal.
At the meeting, Ratcliffe “verbally increased the price in its proposal to $33.00 per Class B Share for the initial purchase of 60 per cent of the Class B Shares (but did not otherwise propose changing the structure of its prior proposal)”.
In July, however, the INEOS founder “contacted representatives of Manchester United regarding an alternative transaction structure involving the purchase of a minority stake”.
Ratcliffe wanted to “purchase 25 per cent of all outstanding Class B Shares for a price of $33.00 per share and 25 per cent of all outstanding Class A Shares at a price to be determined, together with associated minority shareholder protections and governance rights”.
United duly informed Ratcliffe that the “Board of Directors would require equal per share consideration for Class A Shares and Class B Shares”.
Further talks continued and a new offer was submitted on October 13. This time his proposal included buying up to “25 per cent of all outstanding Class A shares” through a public tender at a price of $33 per share, while also completing a “direct purchase” of all outstanding Class B Shares of existing Class B shareholders at a price of $33 per share.
The way he would buy the outstanding Class B shares would be “effected in two tranches, $200m at the time of the closing” and “$100m prior to December 31, 2024, in each case, intended to be available for the purposes of stadium redevelopment”. This became known as the “October Proposal”.
Two days after this offer went in, Sheikh Jassim withdrew his bid, clearing the way for Ratcliffe to proceed and eventually complete the deal.
Ratcliffe’s initial desire to own all of the Glazer shares
In March, Ratcliffe submitted a revised offer that included put and call options, which would enable him to own all of the shares “three to five” years after the initial investment.
A call option gives the buyer the right, usually without an obligation, to buy a particular stock at a pre-determined price, whereas a put option gives the right to an investor, again without an obligation, to sell a stock at a pre-agreed rate.
The documents reveal that Ratcliffe’s proposal detailed an acquisition of “60 per cent of the outstanding Class B Shares initially at a price of $28.00 per Class B Share” and “the remaining 40 per cent of the outstanding Class B Shares through a put and call arrangement to be purchased three to five years thereafter”.
If there was a decision to ‘put’, then the shares would cost $33 in the third year, $34 in year four and $35 in year five. If there was a ‘call’, then it would cost $34 in the third year, $35 in the fourth year, and $36 in the fifth.
These were ultimately rejected, though, with Ratcliffe completing a deal that does not include put and call options after changing his offer in July.
As a reminder, it is worth mentioning that, after 18 months, if the Glazers receive an offer for a full sale and Ratcliffe chooses not to match this, then they will be able to sell United to another buyer.
Questions over Sheikh Jassim’s credentials
Throughout the strategic review, the SEC filing highlights the concern regarding Sheikh Jassim’s proposal to buy all of the shares. Remarkably, he did not once provide copies of financing commitment letters despite being asked to do so several times.
Although the documents do not name Sheikh Jassim, nor his Nine Two Foundation, it is clear that he is cited as “Bidder A”.
His first offer, lodged in February, included the acquisition of all the shares at a “price of $25 per share”.
Towards the end of February, representatives of United and Raine held virtual meetings with Sheikh Jassim to discuss his proposal.
“Raine indicated to Bidder A that it needed to provide details of its intended financing sources in connection with its acquisition proposal” and that he had not provided the shareholders “with sufficient value”.
Sheikh Jassim increased his offer to $28.54 per share in April before revising that with an improved bid of $30 per share in May. Again, neither submission “provided updated financing commitment letters to support its proposal”.
United and Raine informed the Qatari, “for guidance”, that they would “consider a price of $35.25 per ordinary share” as he did not have “sufficient support to proceed”.
Sheikh Jassim returned in June with a new offer for the acquisition of all of the shares, which priced Class B shares at $34 per share and Class A shares at $24.81. The filing notes that this was “$5.20 less than the per Class A Share consideration in May”.
Despite subsequent talks and videoconferences, Sheikh Jassim withdrew from the process in October without ever showing proof of funds.
Windfall for United executives
The documents disclose that several United individuals will do well out of the transaction. Patrick Stewart, the interim chief executive officer and general counsel, and Cliff Baty, the chief financial officer are entitled to “a completion bonus” once the deal goes through. The money awarded will be twice the annual salary that each man earns, so long as they remain employed to the point of Premier League ratification.
Richard Arnold, meanwhile, the former chief executive, may have stepped away from his role before the terms were finalised, but he is still due a healthy pay day. He is revealed as having 240,019 Class A shares which, if he participates in Ratcliffe’s offer should see him receive $1.98m. It is expected the tender will be oversubscribed, thus meaning each person with Class A shares sells 25 per cent of their holding — and for Arnold this equates to £1.56m at today’s exchange rate.
Arnold’s predecessor, Ed Woodward, who stopped working as executive vice-chairman in February 2022, is due for an even bigger windfall. Woodward is not named in this filing because he is now a private shareholder rather than affiliated to the club, but previous accounts show he had 551,486 Class A shares. A 25 per cent cut at $33 per share equates to $4.5m (£3.55m).
Raine, the bank handling the sale, are one of the biggest winners. Their $31.5m “aggregate fee”, plus expenses during the 13-month process, will be paid by United. It would take United doing five deals of the level of Alvaro Fernandez, who has a €6m (£5.14m; $6.52m) purchase option in his loan with Benfica, to cover that cost.
It may be that United can avoid the $31.5m going into their profit and sustainability (PSR) calculations, however. Chelsea, who also employed Raine when Roman Abramovich was forced to sell, had a similarly large transaction fee, which they did not include in their PSR figures, it is believed.
Concerns about lawsuits from Class A shareholders
Stories emerged last summer that United’s non-executive directors were fearful of personal lawsuits from Class A shareholders because of indications that the proposals from Ratcliffe and Sheikh Jassim were focused on Class B shares.
It is the role of Robert Leitao, Manu Sawhney and John Hooks, as the three independent directors on the club board, to act in the interests of the company and all its shareholders. But people owning Class A shares detected they would not be getting treated the same as those with Class B shares, worth 10 times the voting rights.
They were correct in that Ratcliffe’s offers to that point had solely targeted Class B shareholders, the latest then being $33 per share for 60 per cent, with the remaining 40 per cent purchasable through the put-and-call arrangement. Sheikh Jassim’s offer, submitted on June 1, comprised of $34.00 per Class B share and $24.81 per Class A share, a major discrepancy.
Had Leitao, Sawhney and Hooks signed off on either deal they could have been liable for legal action from Class A Shareholders arguing of an unfair process. Arnold was also concerned about that aspect.
The documents detail that concern, reporting how, in June, Hooks and Sawhney “engaged independent U.S. and Cayman counsel to assist in their review of proposals” with Leitao doing so as well later.
On July 26, 2023, representatives of Sheikh Jassim met with the board representatives and were told that his proposal would not be considered unless the holders of Class A shares received “the same per-share consideration” as that of Class B shareholders. The United board members were informed Sheikh Jassim was not prepared to increase his offer for Class A shares to an equal level of the price offered for the Class B shares.
Ratcliffe, however, did listen. Towards the end of July, he proposed to purchase 25 per cent of all Class B shares for a price of $33 per share and 25 per cent of all Class A shares “at a price to be determined”. He did not explicitly say the prices would be matched, but it showed a willingness to negotiate and eventually the final offer saw both Class B and Class A shareholders treated the same.
That’s Sutton, Zidane, Xavi, Beckenbauer and Mario kempes now who say he’s the greatest
1 Like
This Ratcliffe guy has no money
Smith Rowe would be an interesting signing if they could keep him right, Arsenal are wed to Odegaard, captain and on a big new contract
Another Michael Knighton
Can see why you’d say that. When I’ve seen him, he has been good albeit that is 18 months ago. I dont think its the worst idea to punt on these young English guys. Bit of a dribbler, can see a pass, not unlike Mount but stronger.
I’d like to see Mount get plenty of games when he is back, lads there all season have had their go.
Joelinton has 18 months on his contract I just saw. Another lad to look at, the team is seriously underpowered.
I could see Klopp buying Smith Rowe tbh.
Joelinton is only an auld javelin thrower. Grand for a team who have no ambition whatsoever to challenge for leagues. Probably do grand at United actually.
4 Likes